DOCSLIB.ORG

Addressing the Cold Start Problem in the Wikipedia Recommender System Through Content-Based Filtering

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Addressing the Cold Start Problem in the Wikipedia Recommender System Through Content-Based Filtering Addressing the Cold Start Problem in the Wikipedia Recommender System through Content-Based Filtering Mihai Mihăilă Kongens Lyngby 2011 IMM-MSC-2011-75 Technical University of Denmark Informatics and Mathematical Modelling Building 321, DK-2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark Phone +45 45253351, Fax +45 45882673 [email protected] www.imm.dtu.dk IMM-PHD: ISSN 0909-3192 Abstract Wikipedia is a free online encyclopaedia that can be edited by anyone. Despite its large number of contributors and articles, the qualification of the authors, as well as the quality of the contribution they generate, cannot be easily assessed. Wikipedia Recommender System is a collaborative filtering system used to determine the quality of Wikipedia articles based on user ratings. Being a collaborative filtering system, WRS is affected by the cold start problem. The cold start problem is a phenomenon that occurs when there is not enough data for the system to function correctly. New users of WRS do not receive article ratings until they start interacting with the system and have a trust profile. The current project addresses this problem by using WikiTrust article rating. WikiTrust is a system that calculates the rating of an article by determining and computing the trust value of its words. In this system, the words’ trust level is proportional to their authors trust. Authors gain trust by making changes that last over multiple reviews. The goal is to use the WikiTrust article reputation for calculating the WRS trust level in those cases when WRS does not have enough information to determine a good trust estimation of the article quality. While the main purpose is to address the cold start problem, incorporating WikiTrust reputation into WRS trust calculation could potentially increase WRS’s overall trust level accuracy. The current project will investigate the advantages and disadvantages of integrating the two systems, WRS and WikiTrust, and will attempt to determine the best formula to use the latter for improving the current system performance. ii Preface This thesis was prepared at the Department of Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, within the Technical University of Denmark in partial fulfilment of the requirements for acquiring the M.Sc. degree in engineering. The project was completed in the period from March 7th, 2011 to September 23th, 2011 under the supervision of Associate Professor Christian Damsgaard Jensen. The project design was presented during the poster session of International Conference on Trust Management 5th IFIP WG 11.11. One of the results of this project, the WRS Google Chrome Extension, has been published in the Chrome Web Store and is currently available for free download1 and usage. Lyngby, September 2011 Mihai Mihăilă s091368 1 Wikipedia Recommender System - Chrome Web Store https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dlbpjdiahnhhokdbanadnhgjfoiojdmb iv Contents ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................I PREFACE ............................................................................................................... III CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. V LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. VII LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. IX 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1 1.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 1.2. WIKIPEDIA RECOMMENDER SYSTEM .............................................................. 3 1.3. OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 4 1.4. STRUCTURE ................................................................................................ 5 1.5. DEFINITION OF TERMS .................................................................................. 6 2. STATE OF THE ART ........................................................................................ 9 2.1. TRUST MODEL ............................................................................................. 9 2.2. CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................ 12 2.3. CURRENT ARCHITECTURE .......................................................................... 13 2.4. WRS EVOLUTION ...................................................................................... 17 2.5. SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 18 3. ANALYSIS...................................................................................................... 19 3.1. WIKITRUST ............................................................................................... 20 3.1. NECESSARY SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE CHANGES ........................................... 26 3.2. SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 29 4. DESIGN .......................................................................................................... 31 4.1. SERVER SERVICES .................................................................................... 31 4.2. DATABASE ................................................................................................ 33 4.3. BROWSER EXTENSION ............................................................................... 33 4.4. SECURITY ................................................................................................. 34 4.5. SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 35 5. IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................ 37 5.1. SERVER SERVICES .................................................................................... 37 5.2. DATABASE ................................................................................................ 46 5.3. BROWSER EXTENSION ............................................................................... 47 5.4. SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 52 vi 6. EVALUATION................................................................................................. 53 6.1. CONTRIBUTIONS ........................................................................................ 53 6.2. CENTRALIZED VERSUS DECENTRALIZED ....................................................... 54 6.3. PERFORMANCE ......................................................................................... 55 6.4. COLD START PROBLEM .............................................................................. 56 6.5. UI & OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................... 64 6.6. SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 67 7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 69 7.1. WIKIPEDIA RECOMMENDER SYSTEM ............................................................ 69 7.2. FUTURE WORK .......................................................................................... 70 7.3. FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................... 70 7.1. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................... 71 8. APPENDIX ..................................................................................................... 73 8.1. ACCEPTING THE SELF-SIGNED GLASSFISH CERTIFICATE ................................ 73 8.2. EXAMPLES OF WIKITRUST RATINGS ............................................................. 77 8.3. CODE ....................................................................................................... 87 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 149 List of Tables Table 1: Entity mapping in wrs.web.dal.tables ................................................ 42 Table 2: WikiTrust rating distribution for featured articles ......................................... 59 Table 3: WikiTrust rating distribution for poor quality articles.................................... 61 Table 4: WikiTrust rating distribution for random articles .......................................... 63 Table 5: Experiments summary ............................................................................... 63 viii List of Figures Figure 1: Trust evolution function ............................................................................ 11 Figure 2: Trust relationship between user A and B .................................................. 13 Figure 3: Scone Proxy WRS Architecture ................................................................ 14 Figure 4: WRS Feedback interface.......................................................................... 17 Figure 5: WikiTrust rating example .......................................................................... 21 Figure 6: Fixing cold start using WikiTrust ............................................................... 23 Figure 7: Updating the WikiTrust rating
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Initiativen Roger Cloes Infobrief
    Wissenschaftliche Dienste Deutscher Bundestag Infobrief Entwicklung und Bedeutung der im Internet ehrenamtlich eingestell- ten Wissensangebote insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Wiki- Initiativen Roger Cloes WD 10 - 3010 - 074/11 Wissenschaftliche Dienste Infobrief Seite 2 WD 10 - 3010 - 074/11 Entwicklung und Bedeutung der ehrenamtlich im Internet eingestellten Wissensangebote insbe- sondere im Hinblick auf die Wiki-Initiativen Verfasser: Dr. Roger Cloes / Tim Moritz Hector (Praktikant) Aktenzeichen: WD 10 - 3010 - 074/11 Abschluss der Arbeit: 1. Juli 2011 Fachbereich: WD 10: Kultur, Medien und Sport Ausarbeitungen und andere Informationsangebote der Wissenschaftlichen Dienste geben nicht die Auffassung des Deutschen Bundestages, eines seiner Organe oder der Bundestagsverwaltung wieder. Vielmehr liegen sie in der fachlichen Verantwortung der Verfasserinnen und Verfasser sowie der Fachbereichsleitung. Der Deutsche Bundestag behält sich die Rechte der Veröffentlichung und Verbreitung vor. Beides bedarf der Zustimmung der Leitung der Abteilung W, Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin. Wissenschaftliche Dienste Infobrief Seite 3 WD 10 - 3010 - 074/11 Zusammenfassung Ehrenamtlich ins Internet eingestelltes Wissen spielt in Zeiten des sogenannten „Mitmachweb“ eine zunehmend herausgehobene Rolle. Vor allem Wikis und insbesondere Wikipedia sind ein nicht mehr wegzudenkendes Element des Internets. Keine anderen vergleichbaren Wissensange- bote im Internet, auch wenn sie zum freien Abruf eingestellt sind und mit Steuern, Gebühren, Werbeeinnahmen finanziert oder als Gratisproben im Rahmen von Geschäftsmodellen verschenkt werden, erreichen die Zugriffszahlen von Wikipedia. Das ist ein Phänomen, das in seiner Dimension vor dem Hintergrund der urheberrechtlichen Dis- kussion und der Begründung von staatlichem Schutz als Voraussetzung für die Schaffung von geistigen Gütern kaum Beachtung findet. Relativ niedrige Verbreitungskosten im Internet und geringe oder keine Erfordernisse an Kapitalinvestitionen begünstigen diese Entwicklung.
    [Show full text]
  • Reliability of Wikipedia 1 Reliability of Wikipedia
    Reliability of Wikipedia 1 Reliability of Wikipedia The reliability of Wikipedia (primarily of the English language version), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is assessed in many ways, including statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia. [1] Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, assessments of its Vandalism of a Wikipedia article reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly — so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[2] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".[3] A 2007 peer-reviewed study stated that "42% of damage is repaired almost immediately... Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views."[4] Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature suggested that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[5] This study was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica.[6] By 2010 reviewers in medical and scientific fields such as toxicology, cancer research and drug information reviewing Wikipedia against professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a very high standard, often comparable in coverage to physician databases and considerably better than well known reputable national media outlets.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Content-Driven Reputation for Collaborative Code Repositories
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (CIS) Department of Computer & Information Science 8-28-2012 Towards Content-Driven Reputation for Collaborative Code Repositories Andrew G. West University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Insup Lee University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_papers Part of the Databases and Information Systems Commons, Graphics and Human Computer Interfaces Commons, and the Software Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Andrew G. West and Insup Lee, "Towards Content-Driven Reputation for Collaborative Code Repositories", 8th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym '12) , 13.1-13.4. August 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2462932.2462950 Eighth International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration, Linz, Austria, August 2012. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_papers/750 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Towards Content-Driven Reputation for Collaborative Code Repositories Abstract As evidenced by SourceForge and GitHub, code repositories now integrate Web 2.0 functionality that enables global participation with minimal barriers-to-entry. To prevent detrimental contributions enabled by crowdsourcing, reputation is one proposed solution. Fortunately this is an issue that has been addressed in analogous version control systems such as the *wiki* for natural language content. The WikiTrust algorithm ("content-driven reputation"), while developed and evaluated in wiki environments operates under a possibly shared collaborative assumption: actions that "survive" subsequent edits are reflective of good authorship. In this paper we examine WikiTrust's ability to measure author quality in collaborative code development. We first define a mapping omfr repositories to wiki environments and use it to evaluate a production SVN repository with 92,000 updates.
    [Show full text]
  • Checkuser and Editing Patterns
    CheckUser and Editing Patterns Balancing privacy and accountability on Wikimedia projects Wikimania 2008, Alexandria, July 18, 2008 HaeB [[de:Benutzer:HaeB]], [[en:User:HaeB]] Please don't take photos during this talk. What are sockpuppets? ● Wikipedia and sister projects rely on being open: Anyone can edit, anyone can get an account. ● No ID control when registering (not even email address required) ● Many legitimate uses for multiple accounts ● “Sockpuppet” often implies deceptive intention, think ventriloquist What is the problem with sockpuppets? ● Ballot stuffing (some decision processes rely on voting, such as request for adminships and WMF board elections) ● “Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde”: Carry out evil or controversial actions with a sockpuppet, such that the main account remains in good standing. E.g. trolling (actions intended to provoke adversive reactions and disrupt the community), or strawman accounts (putting the adversarial position in bad light) ● Artificial majorities in content disputes (useful if the wiki's culture values majority consensus over references and arguments), especially circumventing “three-revert-rule” ● Ban evasion What is the problem with sockpuppets? (cont'd) ● Newbies get bitten as a result of the possibility of ban evasion: ● Friedman and Resnick (The Social Cost of Cheap Pseudonyms, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 2001): Proved in a game-theoretic model that the possibility of creating sockpuppets leads to distrust and discrimination against newcomers (if the community is otherwise successfully
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Wikipedia Jansn
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Wisdom of the crowd or technicity of content? Wikipedia as a sociotechnical system Niederer, S.; van Dijck, J. DOI 10.1177/1461444810365297 Publication date 2010 Document Version Submitted manuscript Published in New Media & Society Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Niederer, S., & van Dijck, J. (2010). Wisdom of the crowd or technicity of content? Wikipedia as a sociotechnical system. New Media & Society, 12(8), 1368-1387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365297 General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:27 Sep 2021 Full Title: Wisdom of the Crowd or Technicity of Content? Wikipedia as a socio-technical system Authors: Sabine Niederer and José van Dijck Sabine Niederer, University of Amsterdam, Turfdraagsterpad 9, 1012 XT Amsterdam, The Netherlands [email protected] José van Dijck, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 210, 1012 VT Amsterdam, The Netherlands [email protected] Authors’ Biographies Sabine Niederer is PhD candidate in Media Studies at the University of Amsterdam, and member of the Digital Methods Initiative, Amsterdam.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and Its Consequences Eric Goldman Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected]
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2010 Wikipedia's Labor Squeeze and Its Consequences Eric Goldman Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Part of the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation 8 J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 157 (2010) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WIKIPEDIA'S LABOR SQUEEZE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ERIC GOLDMAN* INT RO D U CTIO N ................................................................................... 158 I. MEASURING WIKIPEDIA'S SUCCESS ....................................... 159 II. THREATS TO WIKIPEDIA ......................................................... 161 III. WIKIPEDIA'S RESPONSE TO THE VANDAL AND SPAMMER T H REA T S ................................................................................... 164 A. Increased TechnologicalBarriers to Participation.................... 164 B. Increased Social Barriersto Participation............................... 167 IV. WIKIPEDIA'S LOOMING LABOR SUPPLY PROBLEMS ............. 170 A . E ditor Turnover ................................................................... 170 B. Wikipedia's Limited Toolkit to Attract New Editors..............
    [Show full text]
  • A Cultural and Political Economy of Web 2.0
    A CULTURAL AND POLITICAL ECONOMY OF WEB 2.0 by Robert W. Gehl A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of George Mason University in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Cultural Studies Committee: Director Program Director Dean, College of Humanities and Social Sciences Date: Spring Semester 2010 George Mason University Fairfax, VA A Cultural and Political Economy of Web 2.0 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at George Mason University. By Robert W. Gehl Master of Arts Western Michigan University, 2003 Director: Hugh Gusterson, Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Spring Semester 2010 George Mason University Fairfax, VA Copyright © 2010 Robert W. Gehl Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 All trademarks, service marks, logos and company names mentioned in this work are the property of their respective owners. ii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to one TJ, Teddy, who kindly slept through most of it and danced through the rest, and another TJ, Jesse, who works so hard for our little family. It is also dedicated to my parents, who filled my childhood house with books, computers, and love. Thank you. iii Acknowledgments Singlehandedly authoring a dissertation on Web 2.0 – a phenomenon which can at its best be about multiauthor collaboration in creative projects – is an ironic act. While I might claim authorship of this dissertation, it really is the result of many people working together. Specifically, my wonderful dissertation committee. The chair, Hugh Gusterson, came to GMU at just the right time to set me off on new paths of inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikipedia Vandalism Detection: Combining Natural Language, Metadata, and Reputation Features
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (CIS) Department of Computer & Information Science 2-2011 Wikipedia Vandalism Detection: Combining Natural Language, Metadata, and Reputation Features B. Thomas Adler University of California, Santa Cruz, [email protected] Luca de Alfaro University of California, Santa Cruz -- Google, [email protected] Santiago M. Mola-Velasco Universidad Politcnica de Valencia, [email protected] Paolo Rosso Universidad Politcnica de Valencia, [email protected] Andrew G. West University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_papers Part of the Other Computer Sciences Commons Recommended Citation B. Thomas Adler, Luca de Alfaro, Santiago M. Mola-Velasco, Paolo Rosso, and Andrew G. West, "Wikipedia Vandalism Detection: Combining Natural Language, Metadata, and Reputation Features", Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing 6609, 277-288. February 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19437-5_23 CICLing '11: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, Tokyo, Japan, February 20-26, 2011. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_papers/457 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wikipedia Vandalism Detection: Combining Natural Language, Metadata, and Reputation Features Abstract Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which anyone can edit. While most edits are constructive, about 7% are acts of vandalism. Such behavior is characterized by modifications made in bad faith; introducing spam and other inappropriate content. In this work, we present the results of an effort to integrate three of the leading approaches to Wikipedia vandalism detection: a spatio-temporal analysis of metadata (STiki), a reputation-based system (WikiTrust), and natural language processing features.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting Wikipedia Vandalism Using Wikitrust*
    Detecting Wikipedia Vandalism using WikiTrust? Lab Report for PAN at CLEF 2010 B. Thomas Adler1, Luca de Alfaro2, and Ian Pye3 1 [email protected], Fujitsu Labs of America, Inc. 2 [email protected], Google, Inc. and UC Santa Cruz (on leave) 3 [email protected], CloudFlare, Inc. Abstract WikiTrust is a reputation system for Wikipedia authors and content. WikiTrust computes three main quantities: edit quality, author reputation, and content reputation. The edit quality measures how well each edit, that is, each change introduced in a revision, is preserved in subsequent revisions. Authors who perform good quality edits gain reputation, and text which is revised by sev- eral high-reputation authors gains reputation. Since vandalism on the Wikipedia is usually performed by anonymous or new users (not least because long-time vandals end up banned), and is usually reverted in a reasonably short span of time, edit quality, author reputation, and content reputation are obvious candi- dates as features to identify vandalism on the Wikipedia. Indeed, using the full set of features computed by WikiTrust, we have been able to construct classifiers that identify vandalism with a recall of 83.5%, a precision of 48.5%, and a false positive rate of 8%, for an area under the ROC curve of 93.4%. If we limit our- selves to the set of features available at the time an edit is made (when the edit quality is still unknown), the classifier achieves a recall of 77.1%, a precision of 36.9%, and a false positive rate of 12.2%, for an area under the ROC curve of 90.4%.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikipedia Data Analysis
    Wikipedia data analysis. Introduction and practical examples Felipe Ortega June 29, 2012 Abstract This document offers a gentle and accessible introduction to conduct quantitative analysis with Wikipedia data. The large size of many Wikipedia communities, the fact that (for many languages) the already account for more than a decade of activity and the precise level of detail of records accounting for this activity represent an unparalleled opportunity for researchers to conduct interesting studies for a wide variety of scientific disciplines. The focus of this introductory guide is on data retrieval and data preparation. Many re- search works have explained in detail numerous examples of Wikipedia data analysis, includ- ing numerical and graphical results. However, in many cases very little attention is paid to explain the data sources that were used in these studies, how these data were prepared before the analysis and additional information that is also available to extend the analysis in future studies. This is rather unfortunate since, in general, data retrieval and data preparation usu- ally consumes no less than 75% of the whole time devoted to quantitative analysis, specially in very large datasets. As a result, the main goal of this document is to fill in this gap, providing detailed de- scriptions of available data sources in Wikipedia, and practical methods and tools to prepare these data for the analysis. This is the focus of the first part, dealing with data retrieval and preparation. It also presents an overview of useful existing tools and frameworks to facilitate this process. The second part includes a description of a general methodology to undertake quantitative analysis with Wikipedia data, and open source tools that can serve as building blocks for researchers to implement their own analysis process.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Social Media Guidebook
    2013 Social Media Guidebook The Representative on Freedom of the Media 2013 Social Media Guidebook / Ed. by C. Möller and M. Stone. / Vienna: OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, 2013 – 153 p. The 2013 Social Media Guidebook explores the potential and the challenges of social media and the right to freedom of expression as new media develop. The authors address contemporary issues affecting journalism and media in general. For journalists, consultants, regulatory officials and undergraduate and graduate students. The views expressed by the contributing authors in this publication are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. Design: red hot 'n' cool, Vienna Editors: Christian Möller and Mike Stone © 2013 The Representative on Freedom of the Media Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe 6 Wallnerstrasse A-1010 Vienna Austria Phone: +43-1-51436-6800 Fax: +43-1-51436-6802 e-mail: [email protected] ISBN: 978-92-9234-697-3 2013 Social Media Guidebook The Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Vienna 2013 The Representative on Freedom of the Media Table of Contents Foreword Dunja Mijatović 5 Introduction 9 Today’s news is social Christian Möller 13 User-generated content in traditional media Juliette Harkin, Kevin Anderson, Libby Morgan and Briar Smith 21 Legal and ethical implications of regulating online commentary in OSCE countries Marissa Moran and Douglas Griffin 43 Comments on the Internet Media
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Technologies in Law Libraries: It's Everyone's Business
    Emerging Technologies in Law Libraries: It’s Everyone’s Business LLAW 2nd Quar. Business Meeting, 2010 Compiled by Beverly Butula, Davis & Kuelthau and Bonnie Shucha, UW Law Library See “Twenty Reasons Why Learning Emerging Technologies is Part of Every Librarian’s Job” at http://tinyurl.com/24hlm8 Content Creation Tools Blog - Web page that has short, frequent posts made to it; Short for web log; Blawg - law related blog - Google Blog Search (http://blogsearch.google.com/) - blog search engine - Blawg (http://www.blawg.com/) and Blawg Search (http://blawgsearch.justia.com/)- law blogs - Law Library Blogs (http://aallcssis.pbworks.com/Law-Library-Blogs) - WisBlawg (http://law.wisc.edu/blogs/wisblawg/) – UW Law Library blog - Wisconsin Law Journal Research & Resources (http://www.wislawjournal.com/type.cfm/Bev%20Butula) – Bev Butula’s Blog Podcast - Audio blog; combination of “iPod” + “broadcast”; Blawgcast/Plawdcast - law related podcast; - Podscope (http://www.podscope.com/) - search engine - Blawgs.fm (http://blawgsfm.justia.com) - law podcast directory - Podcast Alley (http://www.podcastalley.com/) – search engine – narrow by genre - Law Librarian Podcasts (http://blawgsfm.justia.com/category.aspx?catid=1875) - Law Librarian Blog Talk Radio (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thelawlibrarian) - Podcasts for law librarians - Library 2.0 Gang (monthly podcasts) – (http://librarygang.talis.com/) Wiki - A website which allows users to add and edit content collectively - Wex (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/) - from Cornell; only selected authors may contribute - Web 2.0 Challenge-Wikis Links & Examples (http://tinyurl.com/r6rp5m) - WikiTrust – (http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/) – FireFox add-on evaluates trustworthiness of a Wikipedia post - Judgepedia – (http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Main_Page) – wiki about judges and the courts.
    [Show full text]